1. Accretion is the process by which soil is gradually deposited along river banks, increasing the land area. For accretion to occur, the deposit must be gradual and imperceptible and caused by the river current. The owner of the adjacent land gains ownership of the accreted land. 2. Avulsion is the sudden removal of land by water. If the detached land remains identifiable, ownership is not changed. The owner must remove the land within 2 years. 3. Under the Torrens system, titles are presumed valid and indefeasible against claims not annotated on the title. However, ownership can still be disputed and registration does not necessarily prove ownership.

1. J U R I S P R U D E N T I A L D O C T R I N E S
2 7 A U G U S T 2 0 2 0
A T T Y . A H M A D R A I S T . U N D U G
Land Titles and Deeds Review
Session 2 of 2

2. Accretion
 Accretion – the process by which soil is deposited or
added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and
gradually received as an effect of the current of the
waters
 Alluvium – the soil deposited through the process of
accretion

3. Requisites of Accretion
 Deposit should be gradual and imperceptible
 Cause is the current of the river
 Cannot be done artificially or through man-made
causes
 Land where accretion occurs is adjacent to the bank
of the river
 Owner of adjacent lot will own the increase

4. Accretion
 Accretion on a sea bank/coast – still belongs to the
public domain
 Alluvial deposit is not automatically registered under
the Torrens system
 Alluvial deposit may still be lost through acquisitive
prescription
 Source of ownership is always the law

5. Avulsion
 Removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or
annexation to the land of another, suddenly, and by
perceptible action of the water

6. Avulsion
 Requisites of Avulsion:
 Sudden and violent
 Land is identifiable and known
 Owner of the land whose portion was detached retains
ownership – however, detached land must be removed within
a period of 2 years

7. Spouses Dalion v. CA (1990)
 Embodiment in a public instrument is not a
requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a
parcel of land
 The provision of Art 1358 of the Civil Code regarding
necessity of a public document is only for
convenience, not for validity and/or enforceability

8. Lee Tek Sheng v. CA
 Registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only
the best evidence thereof.
 What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate
of title and not the title. Placing a parcel of land
under the mantle of the Torrens system does not
mean that ownership thereof can no longer be
disputed.

9. Republic v. CA
 Reconstituted titles are void when there are existing
titles that were neither damaged nor lost in the first
place
 Even after being granted, reconstituted titles can still
be assailed if it can be shown that there are titles that
existed prior to and subsist even after reconstitution

10. Roxas v. Enriquez
 The proceedings for the registration of land, under
Act No. 496, are in rem and not in personam.
 By the description in the notice "To all whom it may
concern," all the world are made parties defendant
and shall be concluded by the default and order.

11. Legarda v. Saleeby
 The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is
to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question
of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted
at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which
may arise subsequent thereto.
 Once a title is registered the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the
court, or sitting in the “mirador de su casa,” to avoid the
possibility of losing his land.

12. Tiburcio v. PHHC
 Upon the expiration of the one-year period within which to
review the decree of registration, the decree as well as the title
issued in pursuance thereof becomes incontrovertible (Section
38, Act No. 496).
 A person dealing with registered land is not required to go
behind the register to determine the condition of the property.
He is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property
which are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of
title. To require him to do more is to defeat one of the primary
objects of the Torrens system.

13. Traders Royal Bank v. CA
 A Torrens title is presumed to be valid which
purpose is to avoid conflicts of title to real properties.
 Every person dealing with a registered land may
safely rely on the correctness of the title and is not
obliged to interpret what is beyond the face of the
registered title.

14. Lacbayan v. Samoy
 What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title
and not the title itself.
 Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens
system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer
be disputed. Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the
name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the
real property may be under co-ownership with persons not
named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a
trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over
the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of
title.

15. Lu v. Manipon
 Registration is not the equivalent of a title, it only gives
validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. It
was not established as a means of acquiring title to
private land because it merely confirms but does not
confer ownership.
 Preferential right of the first registrant of real property in
case of double sale is always qualified by good faith under
Art 1544 of the Civil Code. A holder in bad faith of a
certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the
law, for it cannot be used as shield for fraud.

16. Republic v. Guerrero
 While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to
lands but merely a system of registration of titles to lands,
justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be
made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or
negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence of proof of his
complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons.
 The integrity of the Torrens system relies heavily upon the
competence and efficiency of land registration officials, who
are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their
duties.

17. Baranda v. Gustilo
 The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to
the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments
and the like is ministerial in nature.
 The statute concerning the function of the Register
of Deeds to register instruments in a Torrens
certificate of title is clear and leaves no room for
interpretation.

18. Almirol v. ROD of Agusan
 Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the
register of deeds to determine; this function belongs
properly to a court of competent jurisdiction.

19. Nobleza v. Nuega
 An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the
property of another, without notice that some other
person has a right or interest in the property, for which a
full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the
purchase or before receipt of any notice of claims or
interest of some other person in the property.
 It is the party who claims to be an innocent purchaser for
value who has the burden of proving such assertion, and
it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of
good faith.

20. Nobleza v. Nuega (cont.)
 To successfully invoke and be considered as a buyer in
good faith, the presumption is that first and foremost,
the “buyer in good faith” must have shown prudence and
due diligence in the exercise of his/her rights.
 A buyer in good faith does his homework and verifies
that the particulars are in order such as the title, the
parties, the mode of transfer and the provisions in the
deed/contract of sale, to name a few.

21. Republic v. Sayo
 Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise
appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State.
 All applicants in land registration proceedings have
the burden of overcoming the presumption that the
land thus sought to be registered forms part of the
public domain.

22. Republic v. IAC, Mendoza, and Pasahol
 A mere proposal cannot take the place of a formal act
declaring forest land released for disposition as
public agricultural land.
 Possession of unclassified land, however long,
cannot ripen into private ownership.

23. Carino v. Insular Gov’t of the PH
 Filipino natives were recognized by Spanish laws to
own some lands, irrespective of any royal grant.
 The principle of prescription was admitted: that even
if natives are not able to produce title/deeds, it is
sufficient if they show ancient possession – such is
equivalent to valid title by prescription.

24. Lee Hong Kok v. David
 No public land can be acquired by private persons without any
grant, express or implied, from the government.
 Imperium v. Dominium
 Imperium - government authority possessed by the state which is
appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty
 Dominium - capacity to own or acquire property. The use of this term is
appropriate with reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary
character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and use
of lands and other natural resources, including their disposition, except
as limited by the Constitution.

25. Heirs of Amunategui v. Dir. of Forestry
 A forested area classified as forest land of the public
domain does not lose such classification simply
because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
forest cover.
 The possession of forest lands, no matter how long,
cannot ripen into private ownership.

26. Cruz v. Sec. of Env’t
 Native title is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine
 IPRA is constitutional

27. Republic v. CA and Tabangao Realty
 An applicant seeking to establish ownership over land
must conclusively show that he is the owner thereof in
fee simple.
 All lands are presumed to belong to the public domain of
the State, unless acquired from the government either by
purchase or by grant.
 Exception: lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors
since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the
presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain
or that it had been private property even before the Spanish
conquest.

28. Republic v. CA and Tabangao Realty
(cont.)
 The applicant must present specific acts of ownership to
substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general
statements which are mere conclusions of law than
factual evidence of possession.
 Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of
acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would
naturally exercise over his own property.
 Facts constituting possession must be duly established by
competent evidence.

29. Republic v. de la Paz, et al
 To overcome the presumption that a parcel of land
belongs to the State, incontrovertible evidence must
be established that the land subject of the application
(or claim) is alienable or disposable.
 A survey plan from a geodetic engineer is not
sufficient to prove this.

30. Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro v. CA
 All holders of Spanish titles or grants should cause
their lands covered thereby to be registered under
the Land Registration Act within 6 months from the
date of effectivity of said law.
 Failure to do so renders any such Titulo null and
void under the Torrens system of registration.

31. New Regent Services v. Tanjuatco
 Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article
457 of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the
following requisites:
 that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;
 that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and
 that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of
rivers.
 It is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy
the benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of
accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he
has met all the conditions provided by law.

32. Manila Electric v. Judge Bartolome
 According to Sec. 48b of the Public Lands Act,
Meralco, as a juridical person, is disqualified from
applying for the judicial confirmation of imperfect
title.
 Article XIV Sec. 14 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits
private corporations from holding alienable lands of
the public domain except by lease, not to exceed
1000 hectares in area. In other words, only natural
persons and citizens of the Philippines are allowed to
apply for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title
under the PLA.

33. Virginia Ong de Ocsio v. RVM
 Corporations sole (as juridical persons) may obtain
judicial confirmation of an imperfect title.
 Open, continuous and exclusive possession of
alienable public land for at least thirty (30) years in
accordance with the Public Land Act ipso jure
converts the land to private property, and a juridical
person who thereafter acquires the same may have
title thereto confirmed in its name.

34. Palomo v. CA
 Forest lands cannot be owned by private persons.
 It is not registrable and possession thereof, no
matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into private
property, unless such lands are reclassified and
considered disposable and alienable.

35. Republic v. CA (1987)
 Forest lands cannot be the subject of acquisitive
prescription.
 Section 48b of the Public Lands Act applies
exclusively to public agricultural land, not to forest
land.

36. Republic v. de Guzman
 Acquisitive prescription under the Public Lands Act
starts to run only after the conversion of forest land
to agricultural land.
 Any period of time during which one exercises
“adverse possession” of forest land, however lengthy,
can never ripen into ownership.

37. Republic v. Matimtim
 Declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land
when not supported by any other evidence.
 Declaration for taxation purposes of a parcel of land
in the names of the applicants for registration or of
their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily
prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim
of ownership.

38. Republic v. Rizalvo
 Requisites for the registration of a title:
 Under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree,
applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish:
 first, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and
alienable lands of the public domain;
 second, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same;
 and third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier.

39. Dir. of Lands v. Tesalona
 Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa
palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea
water may also be classified as forest land. The
classification is descriptive of its legal nature or
status and does not have to be descriptive of what
the land actually looks like.

40. Victoria v. Republic
 To prove that the land subject of the application for
registration is alienable, an applicant must establish
the existence of a positive act of the government such
as a presidential proclamation, an executive order, or
an administrative action.

41. Ching v. CA
 A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are
regularly issued and that they are valid. A Torrens
title is incontrovertible against any "information
possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance
thereof not annotated on the title.

42. Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez
 A usufruct in favor of a foreign citizen, although a
real right, is valid because it does not vest title to the
land in the usufructuary.
 It is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens
which is prohibited by the Constitution.

43. Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She
 A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid,
and so is an option giving an alien the right to buy
real property on condition that he is granted
Philippine citizenship.
 However, if the option given to the alien to buy real
property includes a condition that the Filipino
cannot dispose of his property for a period of 50
years, as in this case, this is invalid.

44. Phil. Banking Corp. v. Liu She (cont.)
 Jus disponendi is one of the necessary rights of
ownership. Ownership cannot be given up in part or
in whole to an alien without violating the
Constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership
of real estate.

45. Republic v. Quasha
 While US Citizens enjoy certain rights regarding land
ownership and utilization under the Parity
Amendment, such rights of non-Filipinos exist only
during the existence of the Commonwealth and
before the establishment of the Republic of the
Philippines.

46. Hulst v. PR Builders
 Sec. 7, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits aliens
from owning lands in the Philippines.
 However, void contracts such as the one in the present
case are subject to exceptions, as provided in Article 1414
of the Civil Code. Such exception allows a party to
recover whatever he lost provided that the illegal purpose
of the void contract has not yet been accomplished.

47. Filomena Gerona de Castro v. Joaquin Teng
 Even if a buyer is an alien at the time of sale, such
defect is considered corrected if the buyer becomes a
naturalized citizen, who are constitutionally qualified
to own land.

48. Lee and Yu Lee v. Republic
 If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who
subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a
citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is
considered cured and the title of the transferee is
rendered valid.

49. Republic v. CA and Spouses Lapina
 The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship
may be a transferee of a private land up to a
maximum area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1)
hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his
residence (BP 185).

50. Matthews v. Taylor
 An alien spouse has no right to nullify the Agreement of
Lease between his/her Filipino spouse and a third party
on the ground that the property in question is conjugal in
nature.
 An alien, even when he/she is married to a Filipino, is
absolutely prohibited from acquiring private and public
lands in the Philippines, whether through direct
purchase or through designation of the property as
conjugal.

51. Republic v. IAC and Gonzalves
 Conveyance of residential land to an alien prior to
his acquisition of Filipino citizenship by
naturalization is valid .

52. Vasquez v. Li Seng Giap
 If the ban on aliens from acquiring not only
agricultural but also urban lands is to preserve the
nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos,
that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but
achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real
estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
naturalization.

53. Frenzel v. Catito
(Also Muller v. Muller)
 When an alien buys property using the name of a Filipino
citizen in an attempt to skirt the constitutional
prohibition against alien ownership of real estate, such
alien cannot go to court to assert or claim a right on said
property.
 He who seeks equity must do equity.
 Courts cannot countenance a plea for equity when it
resulted from an intent to circumvent a legal prohibition.

54. JG Summit v. CA
 No law disqualifies a person from purchasing
shares in a landholding corporation even if the
latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity. What
the law disqualifies is the corporation from owning
land.

55. ROD of Rizal v. Ung Sui Si Temple
 A deed of donation of a parcel of land executed
in favor of a religious organization whose
founder, trustees and administrator are aliens
cannot be registered.
 The Constitution makes no exception in favor of
religious associations.

56. Roman Catholic Administrator of Davao v. LRC
 Corporation soles cannot be considered aliens
because they have no nationality at all.
 In determining, whether the constitutional provision
requiring 60% Filipino capital is applicable to
corporations sole, the nationality of the constituents
of the diocese, and not the nationality of the actual
incumbent of the parish, must be taken into
consideration.

57. United Church Board for World Ministries v.
Judge Sebastian
 Same as Vasquez v. Li Seng Giap, only this refers to
corporations
 Where a Filipino citizen sold land to an alien
corporation who later sold it to a Filipino
corporation, the invalidity of the initial transfer to
the alien corporation was corrected by the
subsequent transfer of the property to a citizen.

58. Atty. Jose Gomez v. CA and Judge Aducayen
 The duty of land registration officials is ministerial in the
sense that they act under the orders of the court and the
decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court
and with the data found in the record, and they have no
discretion in the matter.
 However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the
preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer
the matter to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of
the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is
the act of the court.

59. Spouses Laburada v. LRA
 The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the
judicial function of courts and is not a mere
ministerial act which may be compelled through
mandamus.

60. Heirs of Roxas v. CA
 Adjudication of land in a registration (or cadastral)
case does not become final and incontrovertible until
the expiration of one year after the entry of the final
decree.
 Before such time, the decision remains under the
control and sound discretion of the court rendering
the decree, which court after hearing, may set aside
the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to
another party.

61. Tiongco v. de la Merced
 A decree of registration secured through fraud is
valid, although annullable, upon petition filed within
one (1) year after entry of the decree, in the absence
of an innocent purchaser for value, whereas a
decision rendered without notice to the parties of
record is void for lack of due process.

62. Esconde v. Delfin
 An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy
granted to the rightful owner of land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another
for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey
the land to him.
 An ordinary civil action for reconveyance does not seek to set
aside the decree but respecting the decree as incontrovertible
and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey
the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.

63. Marquez v. CA
 An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the
isuance of the Torrens title over the property.

64. People v. Cainglet
 The conclusiveness of judgment in the registration of lands is not
absolute, and admits of exceptions.
 Public policy also dictates that those unjustly deprived of their
rights over real property by reason of the operation of our
registration laws be afforded remedies.
 The aggrieved party may file:
 a suit for reconveyance of property
 a personal action for recovery of damages against the party who registered his
property through fraud; or
 in case of insolvency of the party who procured the registration through fraud, an
action against the Treasurer of the Philippines for recovery of damages from the
Assurance Fund.

65. Fule and Aragon v. Legare and CA
 A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of
another, without notice that some other persons has a
right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and
fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or
before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
persons in the property.
 Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain
from taking any unconscientious advantage of another.

66. Cruz v. CA, Suzara, and Vizconde
 Where innocent third persons, relying on the
correctness of the certificate of title thus issued,
acquire rights over the property, the court cannot
disregard such rights and order the total cancellation
of the certificate.
 Even if a decree in a registration proceeding is
infected with nullity, still an innocent purchaser for
value relying on a Torrens title issued in pursuance
thereof is protected.

67. Spouses Mathay v. CA & Atangan, et al
 Although it is a well-settled principle that the person dealing
on a registered land need not go beyond the certificate of title,
there are still circumstances which would put party on guard
and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being
sold to him.
 It is expected from the purchaser of a valued price of a land to
inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the
occupants, in concept of owner.
 Failure of a prospective buyer to take such precautionary steps
would mean negligence on his part and would thereby
preclude him from claiming or invoking the rights of a
“purchaser in good faith.”

68. Col. de la Merced v. GSIS
 A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the
whole world that a particular real property is in
litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires
an interest over said property does so at his own risk,
or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over
the said property.

69. Home Bankers v. CA
 Judicial notice can be taken of the uniform practice of
banks to investigate, examine and assess the real estate
offered as security for the application of a loan.
 A bank cannot barefacedly argue that simply because the
title or titles offered as security are clean of any
encumbrances or lien, that it is thereby relieved of taking
any other step to verify the over-reaching implications
should the property be auctioned on foreclosure.

70. Martinez v. Garcia and Brua
 The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure
designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece
of real property, where the registration of such interest or
right is not otherwise provided for by the Land
Registration Act or Act No. 496 (now P.D. No.1529 or the
Property Registration Decree), and serves a warning to
third parties dealing with said property that someone is
claiming an interest on the same or a better right than
that of the registered owner thereof.

71. Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga
 Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate
of title is issued, the land covered thereby ceases to be part of
public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens
title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon
the expiration of one year from the date of such issuance.
 However, a title emanating from a free patent which was
secured through fraud does not become indefeasible, precisely
because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void
and of no effect whatsoever.

72. Straits Times v. CA
 The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance
of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly lost or
destroyed in its original form and condition.
 It does not pass upon the ownership of the land
covered by the lost or destroyed title. Possession of a
lost certificate is not necessarily equivalent to
ownership of the land covered by it.

73. MWSS v. Hon. Sison
 A proceeding for judicial reconstitution of lost
certificate of title partakes of the nature of a land
registration and cadastral proceeding, where
publication of the notice of initial hearing in the
Official Gazette is required.

74. Bureau of Forestry v. CA and Gallo
 The classification or reclassification of public lands
into alienable or disposable, mineral, or forest lands
is a prerogative of the Executive Department and not
of the courts.

75. Republic v. Vera
 A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by
the claimant does not constitute possession under
claim of ownership.
 The possession of public land, however long the
period thereof may have extended, never confers title
thereto upon the possessor because the statute of
limitations with regard to public land does not
operate against the State, unless the occupant can
prove possession and occupation of the same under
claim of ownership for the required number of years
to constitute a grant from the State.

76. Republic v. Southside Homeowners
 Until a given parcel of land is released from its
classification as part of a military reservation zone
and reclassified by law or by presidential
proclamation as disposable and alienable, its status
as part of a military reservation remains, even if
incidentally it is devoted for a purpose other than as
a military camp or for defense.

77. J U R I S P R U D E N T I A L D O C T R I N E S
2 7 A U G U S T 2 0 2 0
A T T Y . A H M A D R A I S T . U N D U G
Land Titles and Deeds Review
Session 2 of 2